Thoughts On The Case

[Holly Goodhead]

Doesn’t surprise me, Caroline

April accused me today of lying about the psychiatrist who the defence brought in to assess Jeremy

When I did post the evidence — spending time looking though CAL’s book — April didn’t even apologise

I’m starting to wonder who’s who on here...

I know you’re 100% genuine, you’ve admitted you weren’t sure at first, and corresponded with him until you realised he wasn’t being truthful. Sadly, not everyone can see through his fake persona, and even if they do have suspicions they tell themselves they must be wrong and he’s innocent.

Me too!

How do we know that you're not playing Devil's advocate ISpy?

If you're so convinced JB is guilty as charged and there's no new forensic evidence why bother?  He's on a  whole life tarrif with no hope of parole. Dead duck for those who think as you do.

[The General]

Me too!

How do we know that you're not playing Devil's advocate ISpy?

If you're so convinced JB is guilty as charged and there's no new forensic evidence why bother?  He's on a  whole life tarrif with no hope of parole. Dead duck for those who think as you do.

The over-zealous castigation  / vilification of someone who's guilt has been well established in law, i.e. he's been dealt with legally, although probably not to the total satisfaction of the bereaved, speaks to an unconscious need for 'overkill'. Why is that?

[Holly Goodhead]

I don't think it was 50/50 at all, more like 80/20. It was his own family he was stealing from and even in that crime, he stanged the scene. She couldn't have stopped him, he'd have dine it anyway.

JB claims he  had a grievance with OCP in that he and AE had the same  responsibilities and both were 8% shareholders but his remuneration was less than AE's.  It seems he put this to a controlling director who also happened to be his mother and was told 'When you learn to live properly'.  If this is true I've no idea what was meant by it.  It could have been a reference to JB having JM stay over at his. What motivated him?  Checking security is BS?  A sense of being treated unfairly if there's some truth in June withholding or just greed? 

Assuming he had access to the tills at Little Chef and Sloppy Joe's there doesn't appear to have been any dishonesty on his part.  The owners of Sloppy Joe's even had him living in with them along with the manageress LR who was a close pal of JM's.

[APRIL]

The over-zealous castigation  / vilification of someone who's guilt has been well established in law, i.e. he's been dealt with legally, although probably not to the total satisfaction of the bereaved, speaks to an unconscious need for 'overkill'. Why is that?

It may indicate that something of the crime and/or it's perpetrator has reached the complainant on a personal level which they don't feel has been resolved, OR they're directing their anger at any convenient someone, other than the cause of it, because it's not possible for them to direct it at the cause.

[Holly Goodhead]

The over-zealous castigation  / vilification of someone who's guilt has been well established in law, i.e. he's been dealt with legally, although probably not to the total satisfaction of the bereaved, speaks to an unconscious need for 'overkill'. Why is that?

Why indeed?  If I was the bereaved and believed JB responsible I would be happy to think of him spending the rest of his natural life behind bars.  And after 35 years I would probably think his appeal prospects were zero. 

If I thought him guilty and had no personal involvement I might be interested in a case related book/watching a TV prog but I doubt I could muster the enthusiasm for much else. Certainly not spending hours a day on on a forum telling everyone basically what the trial judge said some 33 years ago.

[APRIL]

JB claims he  had a grievance with OCP in that he and AE had the same  responsibilities and both were 8% shareholders but his remuneration was less than AE's.  It seems he put this to a controlling director who also happened to be his mother and was told 'When you learn to live properly'.  If this is true I've no idea what was meant by it.  It could have been a reference to JB having JM stay over at his. What motivated him?  Checking security is BS?  A sense of being treated unfairly if there's some truth in June withholding or just greed? 

Assuming he had access to the tills at Little Chef and Sloppy Joe's there doesn't appear to have been any dishonesty on his part.  The owners of Sloppy Joe's even had him living in with them along with the manageress LR who was a close pal of JM's.

Ha!! I recognize those words!!! They're a mix of bribe, threat, and admonition, probably aimed at several areas of his life, and having no bearings on his potential as a working shareholder. I can see that Jeremy might have felt unfairly treated/hard done by. However, June's words really don't mean much, given that Ann was several years Jeremy's senior and may well have put more graft into the business. To me, there's a sense of revenge, against June, about what Jeremy did. It's very doubtful that his hands would have been in anyone else's tills.

[APRIL]

Why indeed?  If I was the bereaved and believed JB responsible I would be happy to think of him spending the rest of his natural life behind bars.  And after 35 years I would probably think his appeal prospects were zero. 

If I thought him guilty and had no personal involvement I might be interested in a case related book/watching a TV prog but I doubt I could muster the enthusiasm for much else. Certainly not spending hours a day on on a forum telling everyone basically what the trial judge said some 33 years ago.

Supposing it struck a personal chord with you, though? Possibly you knew of a serious crime committed close to you in which the suspected perpetrator had walked free? Might you then not have a deeper and emotional interest in believing yourself to be ensuring that one particular prisoner never got released?

[Holly Goodhead]

Supposing it struck a personal chord with you, though? Possibly you knew of a serious crime committed close to you in which the suspected perpetrator had walked free? Might you then not have a deeper and emotional interest in believing yourself to be ensuring that one particular prisoner never got released?

I'll ponder that if I may.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

The fact is that you post in a very dogmatic manner, but many of your posts are not correct. Please make sure you that you check the facts before you post and only claim things are facts when you can provide evidence. If you have no evidence to offer please make it clear that you are posting your opinion.

Last night I posted proof that Jeremy was diagnosed a psychopath by his own defence psychiatrist: I took my time to find the source, and didn’t even get a thank you.

I was unaware that one has to put in every post they write whether it’s factual or an opinion...surly that must be obvious?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Me too!

How do we know that you're not playing Devil's advocate ISpy?

If you're so convinced JB is guilty as charged and there's no new forensic evidence why bother?  He's on a  whole life tarrif with no hope of parole. Dead duck for those who think as you do.

That’s too ridiculous to warrant a reply...


I do indeed know he’s guilty — he was convicted 35 years ago


But it’s people such as yourself, Holly, who claim he’s innocent; who are doing their utmost to help him get free, that astonishes me

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Why indeed?  If I was the bereaved and believed JB responsible I would be happy to think of him spending the rest of his natural life behind bars.  And after 35 years I would probably think his appeal prospects were zero. 

If I thought him guilty and had no personal involvement I might be interested in a case related book/watching a TV prog but I doubt I could muster the enthusiasm for much else. Certainly not spending hours a day on on a forum telling everyone basically what the trial judge said some 33 years ago.

You can use my name, you know 😌

I don’t “think” he’s guilty — he IS guilty. He was convicted, remember?

I have spent a lot of time on here, partly due to lockdown and having taken an interest in the case since WHF aired. But unlike you, Holly, I haven’t spent almost TEN years on here discussing him; nor have I gone into gun shops to put magazines in a rifle; worked tirelessly trying to find ballistic experts, forensic experts, all manner of people to try and get him out of jail when he’s actually a stranger to you in reality. You’re even trying to arrange a reconstruction of what happened 35 years ago, and then you tell me that by me discussing the case that “happened 35 years ago” it’s strange  🤷‍♀️

[Holly Goodhead]

That’s too ridiculous to warrant a reply...


I do indeed know he’s guilty — he was convicted 35 years ago


But it’s people such as yourself, Holly, who claim he’s innocent; who are doing their utmost to help him get free, that astonishes me

You will be even more astonished then when he stands on the steps of CoA a free man declared innocent by the court.

[Holly Goodhead]

You can use my name, you know 😌

I don’t “think” he’s guilty — he IS guilty. He was convicted, remember?

I have spent a lot of time on here, partly due to lockdown and having taken an interest in the case since WHF aired. But unlike you, Holly, I haven’t spent almost TEN years on here discussing him; nor have I gone into gun shops to put magazines in a rifle; worked tirelessly trying to find ballistic experts, forensic experts, all manner of people to try and get him out of jail when he’s actually a stranger to you in reality. You’re even trying to arrange a reconstruction of what happened 35 years ago, and then you tell me that by me discussing the case that “happened 35 years ago” it’s strange  🤷‍♀️

Haha I know you said maths isn't your strong point but I didn't become active on this forum until Nov 2013 so < 7 years ago.  My behind the scenes endeavours are much more recent. 

[G-Unit]

Last night I posted proof that Jeremy was diagnosed a psychopath by his own defence psychiatrist: I took my time to find the source, and didn’t even get a thank you.

I was unaware that one has to put in every post they write whether it’s factual or an opinion...surly that must be obvious?

Why should anyone thank a member for complying with the rules? Should you be thanked each time you refrain from abusing fellow members too?

You proved that CAL said something in her book, you didn't prove it was true.

If it were obvious whether posters were posting fact or opinion cites wouldn't be needed. It wasn't obvious when you claimed Julie Mugford didn't know in advance that Jeremy was going to burgle the camp site. You even claimed it as fact, until you were confronted with the evidence.

When members do that others have to spend time finding the real facts while the offender is free to repeat the offense  on another thread. It's the poster's job to find support for their claims, not the responder.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Haha I know you said maths isn't your strong point but I didn't become active on this forum until Nov 2013 so < 7 years ago.  My behind the scenes endeavours are much more recent.

I said “almost” 10 years...I was too lazy to see when you joined. I apologise.

So, you’ve been doing all this relentlessly for seven years...that’s somewhat longer than contributing to a forum for a couple of months 😌

I congratulate you on your steel and determination, and I hope you’re prepared for disappointment when he loses his next attempt to appeal. Although, you must be used to that by now...😙